AVNI AKSHAY JOSHI vs STATE OF GUJARAT

Court
Gujarat High Court

R/CR.MA/15105/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240493782018)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 15105 of 2018

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
AVNI AKSHAY JOSHI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
ADITYA C YAGNIK(8228) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR VIRAT G POPAT(3710) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MANOJ SHRIMALI(2331) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. ROHAN SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

Date : 22/10/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The applicant before this Court has invoked Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash and set aside the FIR
being C.R. No.II-357 of 2018, dated 11.08.2018, lodged before the
Danilimda Police Station, Ahmedabad, for the offence punishable
under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)
(r) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “Atrocity Act”).
2. The FIR verbalizing and it is translated for the sake of
convenience, which is read as under:
Page 1 of 6
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 20:21:26 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/15105/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240493782018)
“It is my pleasure to inform you that I and some of
my colleagues work as nurses in Shubham Hospital
near Bhulabhai Char Rasta. The head of this hospital
is Dr. Shri Akshaykumar Joshi and his wife Dr.
Avniben Joshi. Both of them come to the hospital at
different times. On Sunday evening, 29.07.2018,
Rs.5000/- was deposited in the name of a patient -
Zuveriya, the said amount was kept in drawer by
Hansaben since doctor was not present. The said
amount was handed over by me to Dr. Akshay Joshi
on August 1, 2018. Since, the amount was deposited
late, Dr. Avniben Joshi accused us (three to four of
us) of theft and began threatening us, demanding that
we confess to the theft. Since we had not committed
any theft, we refused to confess as she demanded.
nd rd th
Subsequently, on the 2 , 3 and 4 of the month, she
called us to her office during the afternoon,
threatened us, and asked, “What is worth of your
caste?” She then told us “get out” from her office,
stating, “I wouldn’t even speak to people like you.”
She humiliated us by using insulting language
including remarks directed against our caste or
community and threw us out. Therefore, I am
submitting this written complaint against her to
address this matter.”
3. Learned advocate Ms. Shweta S. Lodha on behalf of learned
advocate Mr. Virat G. Popat for the applicant would submit that the
impugned FIR on the face of it does not disclose any cognizable
offence, more particularly, falling within the four corners of Section
3(1)(r) or 3(2)(v) of the Atrocity Act. Learned advocate would
further submit that the FIR is filed with a malafide intention with a
view to wreck vengeance and to pressurize the present applicant
inasmuch as having found that they had not deposited the amount of
Page 2 of 6
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 20:21:26 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/15105/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240493782018)
Rs.5,000/- paid by the patient in due time and that having came to
know that they would be caught had deposited some of Rs.5,000/-,
pursuant to which the present FIR is lodged.
3.1. Learned advocate for the applicant would rely upon the
judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Keshaw
Mahto @ Keshaw Kumar Mahto vs. State of Bihar and Anr.
reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 799 .
4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Manoj Shrimali for the
original complainant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor
Mr.Rohan Shah for the State would submit that the alleged place of
offence is a hospital where number of patients were admitted, and
therefore, would fall within the four corners of public view as
defined by Section 3(1)(r) of the Atrocity Act and that the allegations
leveled in the FIR would prima facie attract the provisions of
Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocity Act also. Thus, argued that no case is
made out and that the investigation was also allowed to be proceeded
further as there has no coercive steps against the present applicant.
Under such circumstances has argued to reject the present
application.
4.1. Learned advocate would further submit that wrong allegations
were leveled against the present complainant with regard to the theft
of Rs.5,000/- deposited by Zuveriya one of the patients on
29.07.2018. And thus when the complainant was called at the office
Page 3 of 6
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 20:21:26 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/15105/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240493782018)
nd rd th
on 2 , 3 and 4 of August 2018 the cast based slurs were hold by
the present applicant upon the complainant, and under such
circumstances, when prima facie case is made out has argued to
reject the present application.
5. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and
nd rd th
having gone through the FIR, what is alleged is that on 2 / 3 / 4
of August 2018 in the noon, the accused called the complainant in
her office and at that time the alleged incident of informing the
complainant or hurling abuses to the complainant are leveled in the
FIR.
6. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Keshaw
Mahto (supra) , merely saying a caste name or simple abuses does
not automatically constitute an offense. Merely because the fact that
the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is
not sufficient to attract Section 3(1)(r) of the Atrocity Act since the
ingredients for attracting Section 3(1)(r) are that there must be an
intentional insult or intimidation with specific intent to humiliate a
member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in a place within
public view. It is also further held in the said judgment that even
knowledge of the complainant’s caste is not enough to attract this
Section without the intent to humiliate.
7. Tested on the aforesaid principles if the facts of the present
case are considered, even assuming for the moment that the
applicant knew that the complainant is a member of a Scheduled
Page 4 of 6
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 20:21:26 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/15105/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240493782018)
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe would not be sufficient to attract Section
3(1)(r) of the Atrocity Act. More particularly, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Swaran Singh & Ors vs State Tr.Standing Council & Anr.
reported in 2008 8 SSC 435 held that if the offence is committed
outside the building e.g. in a loan outside a house, and the loan can
be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall,
the loan would certainly be a place within public view. Also, even if
the remark is made inside a building, but some members of public
are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an
offense since it is in the public view.
8. Tested on the aforestated principles, the FIR clearly states that
nd rd th
the complainant was called in the office on 2 , 3 and 4 of August
2018. There is not an iota of averment in the entire FIR pointing out
that there were other than the known persons of the hospital may be
other staff members would not fall within the four corners of Section
3(1)(r) as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Swaran
Singh (supra) since mere relatives or friends would not fall within
the purview of public view. Under the circumstances, the present
case fall within the four corners of case of State of Haryana vs.
Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 .
9. It is also required to be noted that, even as per the averments
made in the FIR, the amount received from one patient - Zuveriya to
the tune of Rs.5,000/- on 29.07.2018, which were kept in the drawer
of the counter, were handed over to the husband of the present
Page 5 of 6
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 20:21:26 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/15105/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240493782018)
applicant on 01.08.2018. Pursuant to which the present accused had
alleged offence of theft against three to four persons including the
present complainant. These are the persons who were called in the
office. Except them there were no one else in the office.
10. There is one more reason that the FIR does not repose
confidence. If the persons against whom the allegations of theft were
leveled had returned the amount on 01.08.2018, the question of
nd rd th
calling them in the office on 2 / 3 / 4 of August 2018 does not
arise. Thus also FIR does not repose confidence and seems to have
been lodged with vengeance. This fact cannot be lost sight of in view
of the fact that the applicant had also preferred an application to the
Police Inspector, Danilimda Police Station on 11.08.2018 giving
details as to what actually had happened.
11. As a result, the present application is allowed. The FIR being
C.R. No.II-357 of 2018, dated 11.08.2018, lodged before the
Danilimda Police Station, Ahmedabad, and consequential
proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed and set aside qua
the present applicant.
12. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is
permitted.
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
NITIN MAKWANA
Page 6 of 6
Uploaded by NITIN INDRAVADANMAKWANA(HCW0110) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 20:21:26 IST 2026